Supposed you cloned yourself, nothing but your cells. Grew it into a child and an adult. This clone would be all of YOUR cells, grown from YOU. It would be no different than if you (could) regrew a limb, simple cells glued together neurons telling it to move at your will. The clone would be different than your child in the sense that a child has a different and new DNA created from half of yours, but also half of someone elses. This means these cells arent yours, because its half of someone elses, and vice versa. Its a new being. But a clone is cells that were told to grow, maybe the cells could have been used to heal a cut you encountered but instead they were coaxed to grow into a being.

Say some of your cells were used to re grow a limb, you can do what ever you want with this new limb, move it, kick it, punch it, it does what ever you tell it to you. You have the right to do what ever you want to it. What about if those cells were used to clone your self, the same logic would have to applied because they are your cells, and would have to be considered an extension to you, a limb of sorts. But it has a consious correct? Your telling your cells that have coeheriently became a seperate human being to do something, they would have to listen just as your limb would listen, but it don't obey because it has a brain, your brain. So you could "force" it to obey by anymeans because you are legally allowed to, broadly put, abuse your self. It can't be illegal because if you can do it to yourself, you can do it to your "limb". They have to be your slave because you own your cells, I could have a pit of my stem cells that I could burn if I so pleased, but the same cells just in different form can't be burned? No matter if it has a consious (An extension to your consious, logically.) or not, you can do as you please to it using this logic. Its just a limb right?

My personal belief is that it should be a person, it should have its own right but logically you can do what ever you please with it.

My logic above might be flawed because I didn't know how to present this argument correctly, but if you get my idea feel free to correct me.

You might want to try explaining the second part a little differently, but I don't think you've thought it through very well.
What do you mean using "those cells" to clone yourself? How are you imagining the cloning process? I'm thinking of extracting your DNA and placing it in a fertilized egg. No matter what cells you use for the egg or where you got your DNA from, it would grow into what would essentially be an identical twin, and that's exactly how it should be treated.

If a limb was to become independent of the body it would most likely be diagnosed as a medical issue rather than being registered as property or its own person, which would be irresponsible. I imagine it would be filed next to alien hand syndrome.

You might want to try explaining the second part a little differently, but I don't think you've thought it through very well.
What do you mean using "those cells" to clone yourself? How are you imagining the cloning process? I'm thinking of extracting your DNA and placing it in a fertilized egg. No matter what cells you use for the egg or where you got your DNA from, it would grow into what would essentially be an identical twin, and that's exactly how it should be treated.

I was thinking of advanced treatment for cells that can coax them to turn into eggs, and extract dna from your other cells( This way every part of the developing cells is you), every cell in your body has the ability to be another cell, its just telling it to be another cell thats hard.

I just thought of an issue, your clone is essentially a child, you wouldn't be able to just transfer over your memories and knowledge, you'd have to teach it everything wouldn't you?

Well yeah, it'd be an entirely new human being who just happens to have the same DNA as you. It'd be kind of like having a delayed identical twin.

Edited:

I don't see how the second part of the OP makes any sense. Regrowing parts of your body from your cells is different to completely cloning yourself. It's not like if you're allowed to regrow an arm and do whatever with it, you're automatically allowed to do whatever with a full clone; likewise if you're able to clone yourself, it doesn't mean you have to class a cloned body part by itself (e.g. an arm or a kidney) as a person, that's just silly.

Well yeah, it'd be an entirely new human being who just happens to have the same DNA as you. It'd be kind of like having a delayed identical twin.

Edited:

I don't see how the second part of the OP makes any sense. Regrowing parts of your body from your cells is different to completely cloning yourself. It's not like if you're allowed to regrow an arm and do whatever with it, you're automatically allowed to do whatever with a full clone; likewise if you're able to clone yourself, it doesn't mean you have to class a cloned body part by itself (e.g. an arm or a kidney) as a person, that's just silly.

Edited:

A kidney is a body part and a person is a person.

If you grew a body without a brain and hooked it into your brain, its an extra limb(s). The sole difference is a brain. If the head was filled with stem cells, instead of a brain than you still own it. If those stem cells turn into a brain you no longer own it. Flawed logic. (My logic might also be flawed but I fail to understand how to present this argument clearly.)

If you grew a body without a brain and hooked it into your brain, its an extra limb(s). The sole difference is a brain. If the head was filled with stem cells, instead of a brain than you still own it. If those stem cells turn into a brain you no longer own it. Flawed logic. (My logic might also be flawed but I fail to understand how to present this argument clearly.)

Actually you'd first have to change the basic premise of most legal systems which claim a body or body parts cannot be owned. Body parts were already unownable objects during roman times.

As to the moral question. It comes down to one thing.

a) does this clone body have a functional self aware brain or not. If it doesn't, there's no moral dillema. If it does though, you're better of just growing the tissue piece you actually need.

If the head was filled with stem cells, instead of a brain than you still own it. If those stem cells turn into a brain you no longer own it. Flawed logic. (My logic might also be flawed but I fail to understand how to present this argument clearly.)

What are you trying to say? You don't seem to understand the question you present.

What are you trying to say? You don't seem to understand the question you present.

I honestly don't know how to present this argument in any form, I can understand the logic i'm using but I can't understand how to put it into words. My previous attempts resulted in a flawed idea, I will try one more time but I can't guarantee its correct.

If you cut off your arm, you "own" it, your property. Pretend this arm is a seed that you very well "own", you grow it into a full vegetable which is also yours. The arm is yours and you told the arm (it's cells) to manifest in a manner that resembles a growing human fetus, the fetus grows in to a full human. You owned the seed (arm), you used the resources to make it grow into a vegetable (Human), theoretically you should own this result as well.

It doesn't matter morally because those are your cells, therefore your organs, your brain. Its not the same as a twin because the clone was grown from something you own, something that's you. A twin is simply a zygote split in half, nothing is grown from something that one person owns, that came directly from one person. (This second paragraph is definitely flawed considering the first one, but again I hope you can understand.)

I honestly don't know how to present this argument in any form, I can understand the logic i'm using but I can't understand how to put it into words. My previous attempts resulted in a flawed idea, I will try one more time but I can't guarantee its correct.

If you cut off your arm, you "own" it, your property. Pretend this arm is a seed that you very well "own", you grow it into a full vegetable which is also yours. The arm is yours and you told the arm (it's cells) to manifest in a manner that resembles a growing human fetus, the fetus grows in to a full human. You owned the seed (arm), you used the resources to make it grow into a vegetable (Human), theoretically you should own this result as well.

It doesn't matter morally because those are your cells, therefore your organs, your brain. Its not the same as a twin because the clone was grown from something you own, something that's you. A twin is simply a zygote split in half, nothing is grown from something that one person owns, that came directly from one person. (This second paragraph is definitely flawed considering the first one, but again I hope you can understand.)

I still hold by "if it has a brain than you don't own it, if it does then you don't"

You can cut off your arm and still be a sentient person, hell you can remove plenty of organs and still be kept alive in the hospital, but if your brain is removed then you're gone.

The brain is the person and the body is just the shell it uses, if its just an arm thats grown, its as ethically right to say you own it as to say you own a branch that you got from your backyard, now to say you grew a full person, it would be like finding a baby in your backyard. You still don't own it.

Is this really a question? In all probablity it would only happen to look a lot like me and be the result of that time I jizzed in a plastic cup, that doesn't mean I have any extra degree of control over it.

Plus, if it is a conscious being, it isn't a limb. It is a conscious being. That's a whole world of difference right there.

If I had a clone of me, I would be very interested to see whether he has a similar personality to me, whether he is a homosexual or not, etc; and see what traits come from upbringing and environment, and what come from genetics.

If it were grown as a completely different entity, and started as a baby, and needs to grow as an adult, I would probably treat it like my child, and would become more of an individual person.

If I just grew a replica of me in a few days/weeks/months, I would treat it as an individual person as well. If it can think, breathe, and act like a human, and has a individual mind and consciousness. It should be considered as an individual.

Unless my brain is still governing it somehow, it's a person in his own right and should be treated as such.
I'd be torn if I could stand being around another of me (let alone more), or if it would just be totally awesome to have 5000 me running around like Smith in the latter Matrix movies.

If i had a clone, i'd fight it, have make-up sex, fight again, play videogames, fight, sex (admit it, everybody would), and pull of robberies and he would probably be my partner in everything. its not gay, its narcissistic